In May of 1979, Audre Lorde shared her critique of Gyn/Ecology with Mary Daly via a letter. Lorde claimed she had received no response from Daly and published her assessment of Daly’s work as an open letter. Lorde had commented on this issue over the years and in 1982 claimed in an interview that if she had received a response from Daly, she would not have published her critique as an open letter. This letter was widely republished and has been used as a paradigmatic teaching tool for the study of “white feminist racism” in Women’s Studies’ courses. However, in 2003 as Alexis De Veaux was completing research for her forthcoming biography about Lorde, Warrior Poet, she found Daly’s letter of response in Lorde’s papers. On the letter Daly’s last name waswritten in the bottom corner in Lorde’s handwriting. On June 9, 2003 De Veaux contacted Dalyexplaining her discovery and asked permission to quote from Daly’s letter that was dated September 22, 1979. DeVeaux wrote about the existence of the letter and an unsatisfactory encounter between the two women that occurred in September 1979; she also speculated on the reasons Lorde chose not to disclose receiving the letter. In Amazon GraceDaly tells her version of the story and explains that it was gratifying that De Veaux thought it was crucial to publish the letter and correct the widespread misbelief that Daly had not responded to Lorde (26). Shortly after Daly received a copy of her letter from DeVeaux, she called friends and colleagues asking them to help make this information more widely known. Carol P. Christ gave me access to the copy of Mary’s letter she received at that time. Because parts of the letter itself may be difficult to read, I am also posting a transcription.

September 22, 1979

Dear Audre,

First, I want to thank you for sending me The Black Unicorn. I have read all of the poems, some of them several times. Many of them moved me very deeply – others seemed farther from my own experience. You have helped me to be aware of different dimensions of existence, and I thank you for this.

My long delay in responding to your letter by no means indicated that I have not been thinking about it – quite the contrary. I did think that by putting it aside for awhile I would get a better perspective than at first reaction. I wrote you a note to that effect which didn’t get mailed since I didn’t have your address. Then there was a hope of trying to get to Vermont in August, but the summer was overwhelmingly eventful.

Clearly there is no simple response possible to the matters you raise in your letter. I wrote Gyn/Ecology out of the insights and materials most accessible to me at the time. When I dealt with myth I used commonly available sources to find what were the controlling symbols behind judeo-christian myth in order to trace a direct line to the myths which legitimate the technological horror show. But of course to point out this restriction in the first passage is not really to answer your letter. You have made your point very strongly and you most definitely do have a point. I could speculate on how Gyn/Ecology would have been affected had we corresponded about this before the manuscript went to press, but it doesn’t seem creativity-conducing to look backward. There is only now and the hope of breaking the barriers between us – of constantly expanding the vision.

I wonder if you will have any time available when I come to New York for the Simone de Beauvoir conference? Since I have a lot to do here, I had thought of just flying down Friday morning and returning that night. Are you free Friday afternoon or evening? Or will you be in Boston any time soon? I called and left a message on your machine. My number is …. Hope to see you and talk with you soon.

[Handwritten] I hope you are feeling well, Audre. May the strength of all the Goddesses be with you – Mary